Share this story

A new report from the space agency's inspector general concludes that NASA has no easy choice when it comes to the future of the massive International Space Station that orbits about 400km above the Earth. The station, which has been continually inhabited by humans for nearly two decades, is presently the only destination in outer space for astronauts and cosmonauts to visit.

Recently, the White House announced that it wanted to end direct NASA funding for the space station in the year 2025 and transfer operations to the private sector. Key Senators who oversee NASA's activities have pushed back against this idea in a bipartisan way, saying that the station should be funded through 2028 in order to complete its mission of scientific research. That extension would also help development and testing of new technologies needed for deep space exploration by humans—such as toilets that don't break every six months.

In the report published Monday, NASA Inspector General Paul Martin found that both of these choices have some significant downsides. "Each of the options for transitioning or retiring the ISS present NASA with distinct challenges and associated cost," the report states.

Option 1: Privatize the station

NASA spent more than a decade, and nearly $100 billion, to construct the station along with international partners in Russia, Europe, Canada, and Japan during the 2000s. NASA now spends $3 to $4 billion a year to maintain the station, including an ongoing maintenance contract with Boeing and commercial cargo and crew services. This is about half of NASA's total budget for human exploration activities.

Further Reading

The White House would like to hand the station over to a private entity in 2025, with NASA assuming "tenant" status in low-Earth orbit, and then spend those extra billions of dollars to give its notional plans to send humans to the Moon and Mars some basis in reality. However, since the transition proposal was made, it has not been clear whether any private entity could profitably operate the station. The inspector general sounds the alarm about this as well.

"Based on our audit work, we question the viability of NASA’s plans," the report states. "Specifically, we question whether a sufficient business case exists under which private companies will be able to develop a self-sustaining and profit-making business independent of significant federal funding. In particular, it is unlikely that a private entity or entities would assume the Station’s annual operating costs, currently projected at $1.2 billion in 2024."

In short, the market beyond existing microgravity research—which might include space tourism, satellite servicing, manufacturing of goods, and research and development—simply does not yet exist. Claims that such markets will exist six years from now are "overly optimistic," the report finds. And without the station after 2024, the report notes that NASA would not complete a number of astronaut health and technology development projects, including environmental control and life support systems.

Option 2: Fly it through the 2020s

Alternatively, Congress could get its way, and the station would fly through 2028. The station's prime contractor, Boeing, has recently certified that the major components of the orbiting laboratory will remain in good working condition through then. This would provide NASA and its academic partners the certainty they need for long-duration missions, and it would allow the space agency to prove out the technology it needs to safely send humans deeper into space.

Further Reading

However, the price is high: a continued expenditure of $3 to $4 billion a year, plus further delays of a human return to the Moon or eventual trips to Mars in a few decades.

"We found that, assuming funding for NASA’s human exploration program remains constant, a continuation of ISS funding through 2028 will require either increased funding in the 2020s to develop exploration systems needed for Mars missions or will require the Agency to push out the timeline for its Mars exploration plans," the report states.

Continuing to fly the station could also stunt the nascent efforts of companies like Bigelow and Axiom to develop lower-cost, smaller private stations in low-Earth orbit.

The bottom line is that one of the most consequential space disagreements between the Trump White House and Congress concerns the future of the International Space Station. From the standpoint of advancing human activity into the final frontier, neither side's position seems like a surefire winner right now.

That extension would also help development and testing of new technologies needed for deep space exploration by humans—such as toilets that don't break every six months.

The ISS has been around for two decades and a reason given for a 3 year life extension is to get reliable toilets? They have had 20 damn years! they have 7 more years with out the 3 years extension. If they can't do it now they aren't going to have it done by 2028.

I thought in the last Ars write up RE: The International Space Station, an issue was brought up regarding the joint ownership of the ISS, and how it was extremely unlikely that it would be privatized due to ownership concerns. Has that suddenly become a non-issue? Otherwise, how would this (or any) administration possibly manage to sell it?

[edit] Interesting and relevant, I found this article from 2016 talking about adding a private airlock to the ISS to boost commercial activity (Ars article), then I found This one where Ars reports that there *WILL* be a new private airlock slated for next year. I still haven't been able to find the article discussing property of the ISS and what the 2028 plans will be for it though.

I think Amazon or Bezos himself should buy it. They could use it as a destination for their eventual Blue Origin tourist flights, and maybe even build it out into the first space hotel. And if nothing else, maybe they could use it for their new Amazon Prime delivery plaform. 😉😉😉

I suspect Bezos already has plans for a space hotel. But judging by the talking points over the last few years my money would be on the moon rather than in LEO.

I think Amazon or Bezos himself should buy it. They could use it as a destination for their eventual Blue Origin tourist flights, and maybe even build it out into the first space hotel. And if nothing else, maybe they could use it for their new Amazon Prime delivery plaform. 😉😉😉

The issue is that the ISS is ancient, in a bad orbit and very expensive to maintain/operate. If BO had the budget and interest in a permanently manned space station they probably would just build a new less modular, cheaper to operate station in a better orbit.

It is the same logic that leads to ships eventually getting scrapped. At some point even if you tried to sell the ship for a $1 nobody would buy it because the ongoing maintenance and operating costs would make it uneconomical compared to paying more for a newer ship which is more economical.

I think Amazon or Bezos himself should buy it. They could use it as a destination for their eventual Blue Origin tourist flights, and maybe even build it out into the first space hotel. And if nothing else, maybe they could use it for their new Amazon Prime delivery plaform. 😉😉😉

That was the whole point of the tax cuts, right? Rich people can now pay for stuff like this out of the goodness of their hearts. Oh wait..

Maybe Trump's idea is to do this like the way schools and prisons are privatized. The government still pays for it, but business friends of the administration pocket half of the money, while the quality of service decreases, providing justification to shut the program down altogether.

While they may not want to call it option 3, I still suspect most likely source of funds for new projects likely comes when SLS can no longer be defended, and those funds get shifted around where many of the same players shifting to building the structures that go in BFR or Blue Origins concept for deep space.

This discussion is incomplete without mentioning CASIS. I suspect that the White House might be unaware that it exists.

CASIS is a private non-profit organization which, as part of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, was granted oversight of 50% of NASA's allocation of resources on the ISS to manage as a national laboratory. Unfortunately, CASIS has only be able to utilize 52.7% of the crew time it was allocated between 2013 and 2017. The remaining crew time has been wasted.

We can wax hypothetical about privatizing the ISS, or we can simply look at the evidence which indicates that we've already taken steps toward privatization, and it hasn't been working well.

In a perfect world, NASA would have sole discretion on what and how to spend its budget. In reality, they're at the whims of Congress and the Executive Branch. In this reality, I'd much rather keep funding the ISS than reallocate those funds to something as useless as the SLS, Orion, deep space debacle and the current vision of Mars.

At some point when SpaceX and Blue work out fully reusable rockets, then let NASA design interesting science based on cheap transport.

Edit: at least actual, useful science is being done on the ISS, so we're getting some value for our tax dollars. The same can't be claimed of other Congressional NASA-mandated pork projects.

Scrap it when it reaches the end of its purpose, use what was learned from it to build a better orbital station at a better orbit with better, improved components and keep us there. The private sector isn't doing it, at best helping it. We pay taxes to fund research that improves knowledge, not for profit necessarily. Also, maybe build one or two rooms for filthy rich travelers that would like to stay a few days there maybe to help keeping the thing?

I really like the idea of NASA having an extra 1.2B a year to spend on other projects that will get us to the Moon and beyond. Unfortunately the money will likely just get burned into the entirely useless SLS program so I'm conflicted.

I really like the idea of NASA having an extra 1.2B a year to spend on other projects that will get us to the Moon and beyond. Unfortunately the money will likely just get burned into the entirely useless SLS program so I'm conflicted.

It's a shame that NASA is beholden to politicians to get things done.

Assuming NASA gets to keep the extra 1.2B and isn't just trimmed out of their budget.

Scrap it when it reaches the end of its purpose, use what was learned from it to build a better orbital station at a better orbit with better, improved components and keep us there. The private sector isn't doing it, at best helping it. We pay taxes to fund research that improves knowledge, not for profit necessarily. Also, maybe build one or two rooms for filthy rich travelers that would like to stay a few days there maybe to help keeping the thing?

I`m partial toward preserving the station in higher orbit. (say... 1000km) Unmanned of course.And observe the material degradation inside and outside, year after year.

ISS is quite old. (for a orbiting structure)Even if Boeing can guarantee that the US modules can make it thru 2020`s, what about the Russian ones? How long before the station becomes a ticking coffin? (due to old age and metal fatigue)

I think Amazon or Bezos himself should buy it. They could use it as a destination for their eventual Blue Origin tourist flights, and maybe even build it out into the first space hotel. And if nothing else, maybe they could use it for their new Amazon Prime delivery plaform. 😉😉😉

The issue is that the ISS is ancient, in a bad orbit and very expensive to maintain/operate. If BO had the budget and interest in a permanently manned space station they probably would just build a new less modular, cheaper to operate station in a better orbit.

It is the same logic that leads to ships eventually getting scrapped. At some point even if you tried to sell the ship for a $1 nobody would buy it because the ongoing maintenance and operating costs would make it uneconomical compared to paying more for a newer ship which is more economical.

I'm not sure why you call it a "bad orbit". The higher inclination of 51.6 degrees was chosen so that Russia could participate when launching from Baikonur without dropping lower stages into China. It turns out that it was important to have Russian launches for both crew and cargo. It is, after all, claimed to be an international space station.

I'm a bit confused...ending support for the ISS in 2025 vs 2028 is "one of the most consequential disagreements between the Trump White House and Congress"? So, 7 or 10 years or about $10-$12B in spending, but either way, it's gonna go either private, storage (if that is an option), or disposal. If that's the "most consequential disagreement", well then they're pretty much in lock-step with each other.

Personally, I'd like to the ISS become some billionaire's private lair... cough...BezosorMusk...cough.

I'm not sure why you call it a "bad orbit". The higher inclination of 51.6 degrees was chosen so that Russia could participate when launching from Baikonur without dropping lower stages into China. It turns out that it was important to have Russian launches for both crew and cargo. It is, after all, claimed to be an international space station.

I think Amazon or Bezos himself should buy it. They could use it as a destination for their eventual Blue Origin tourist flights, and maybe even build it out into the first space hotel. And if nothing else, maybe they could use it for their new Amazon Prime delivery plaform. 😉😉😉

That was the whole point of the tax cuts, right? Rich people can now pay for stuff like this out of the goodness of their hearts. Oh wait..

Maybe Trump's idea is to do this like the way schools and prisons are privatized. The government still pays for it, but business friends of the administration pocket half of the money, while the quality of service decreases, providing justification to shut the program down altogether.

Schools, yes. Prisons, not so much. Because who gives a damn about the conditions convicts live in?

Sadly I wish I could /s that question but it's all too real of a mentality.

I think Amazon or Bezos himself should buy it. They could use it as a destination for their eventual Blue Origin tourist flights, and maybe even build it out into the first space hotel. And if nothing else, maybe they could use it for their new Amazon Prime delivery plaform. 😉😉😉

The issue is that the ISS is ancient, in a bad orbit and very expensive to maintain/operate. If BO had the budget and interest in a permanently manned space station they probably would just build a new less modular, cheaper to operate station in a better orbit.

It is the same logic that leads to ships eventually getting scrapped. At some point even if you tried to sell the ship for a $1 nobody would buy it because the ongoing maintenance and operating costs would make it uneconomical compared to paying more for a newer ship which is more economical.

I'm not sure why you call it a "bad orbit". The higher inclination of 51.6 degrees was chosen so that Russia could participate when launching from Baikonur without dropping lower stages into China. It turns out that it was important to have Russian launches for both crew and cargo. It is, after all, claimed to be an international space station.

Which would be of little use for BO. At best it was a compromised orbit. It increased payload mass to orbit for the Russians and reduced payload mass to orbit for the Americans (and literally everyone else on the planet) but we accepted it for the geopolitical reasons at the time. Reasons that don't really exist anymore.

To be clear Russians can launch to orbits less than 51 deg it just means less payload mass to orbit because they have to dogleg just like we have to dogleg. Likewise the orbit is terrabad for the ESA which is launched from 5 deg latitude as the greater the difference between the latitude and inclination the greater the reduction in payload mass for a given rocket.

So even as an international station 51.6 deg isn't good. It was ideal for the Russians and only the Russians everyone else (American, Japanese, Europeans) took a payload mass hit. It is all cons and no pros for BO as they have no high latitude launch facilities.

I'm a bit confused...ending support for the ISS in 2025 vs 2028 is "one of the most consequential disagreements between the Trump White House and Congress"? So, 7 or 10 years or about $10-$12B in spending, but either way, it's gonna go either private, storage (if that is an option), or disposal. If that's the "most consequential disagreement", well then they're pretty much in lock-step with each other.

Personally, I'd like to the ISS become some billionaire's private lair... cough...BezosorMusk...cough.

Well Congress is now pushing for 2030. So if Congress has its way the ISS will operate forever until it kills someone and then it will be NASA's fault.

I think Amazon or Bezos himself should buy it. They could use it as a destination for their eventual Blue Origin tourist flights, and maybe even build it out into the first space hotel. And if nothing else, maybe they could use it for their new Amazon Prime delivery plaform. 😉😉😉

The problem with that idea is the ISS wasn't designed as a tourist hotel. It was designed as an international laboratory. It is also pretty old - some of the modules have been up there 20 years now.

There won't be an ISS v2. There will be a Chinese station in LEO. Maybe other nations will participate, maybe not. There's no appetite in the Western World for another government-funded space station in LEO.

The only credible private station venture, Bigelow Aerospace, laid off almost all of their employees after concluding that there is no sustainable commercial demand, and the foreign government market wouldn't materialize because there's no national prestige associated with renting time on a commercial space station.

The private sector is willing and capable of making big investments in a new LEO station, but only if a government partner is signed up to be the anchor tenant covering most of the operating costs. To be successful in human spaceflight, private capital requires public demand, because there's not much private demand to speak of.

I think Amazon or Bezos himself should buy it. They could use it as a destination for their eventual Blue Origin tourist flights, and maybe even build it out into the first space hotel. And if nothing else, maybe they could use it for their new Amazon Prime delivery plaform. 😉😉😉

I thought in the last Ars write up RE: The International Space Station, an issue was brought up regarding the joint ownership of the ISS, and how it was extremely unlikely that it would be privatized due to ownership concerns. Has that suddenly become a non-issue? Otherwise, how would this (or any) administration possibly manage to sell it?

The Station was built under an inter-agency agreement between the various national space agencies (NASA, ESA, Russia, Japan, and Canada). Ownership of the various pieces isn't as clean-cut as the modules, since by now there is stuff from different countries all over the place.

The agreement specifies percentage of astronaut headcount and science resources according the various country's contributions to the project. That's how you got Chris Hadfield, who is Canadian, to fly a mission up there. Science resources are things like experiment rack space, electrical power, station-to-ground bandwidth, and astronaut time to run the experiment.

I`m partial toward preserving the station in higher orbit. (say... 1000km) Unmanned of course.And observe the material degradation inside and outside, year after year.

The ISS isn't designed to function anywhere but low orbit. There are multiple technical details which assume that orbit: radiation belt exposure, thermal balance, alpha joint rotation rate, plasma contact grounding, etc. Material degradation was studied in the Shuttle era by LDEF, and on-board the Station for 20 years now, longer won't make a difference. What we need is a new station that incorporates what we have learned.

I was blogging the other night and the thought occurred to me that the Lunar Gateway is better located in GEO Its here that the most economic activity occurs and future economic activity is most likely to occur. Satellite servicing and a Cryogenic Zenon propellent depot would make sense as a human-tended outpost. How big can comsats be? The GEO gateway could demonstrate a very large EVA assembled Comsat

Synchronous orbit is in the outer part of the Van Allen radiation belts. Not a good place for people. Lunar orbit isn't that great either, but less bad. Both locations would benefit from bulk asteroid rock used as radiation shielding.

I'm so tired of the so-called strategy of this administration coming from bumper stickers. Absolutely nothing is thought through.

It's easier to come up with a slogan than thorough, well thought out and fact based policy. None of the current Administrations voter base gives two shits about the latter and will chant the former ad nauseam, plus shitty <5 word marketing slogans are pretty much the densest information format that the POTUS can process.

Scrap it when it reaches the end of its purpose, use what was learned from it to build a better orbital station at a better orbit with better, improved components and keep us there. The private sector isn't doing it, at best helping it. We pay taxes to fund research that improves knowledge, not for profit necessarily. Also, maybe build one or two rooms for filthy rich travelers that would like to stay a few days there maybe to help keeping the thing?

And how will this thing be successfully de-orbited/scrapped? Most objects intentionally brought back from LEO wind up as a fiery, molten mess at the bottom of an ocean.

We're really good at getting stuff up there, but not so good at getting it back down (with the limited exceptions of SpaceX, Astronaut modules [Apollo and ISS], and [mostly] the Space Shuttle).

I just had a thought that I don't think I've seen addressed in any stories here at Ars. Assuming private destinations in space do become a thing, who is going to build this stuff? For example, say Blue Origin wanted to build a space hotel out of Bigelow expandable modules. A fair amount of construction would need to go on inside to make it habitable. Are there any known plans for training zero-g construction workers?

And who is going to crew the ships that carry passengers?

I could see a serious drain from NASA when private interests start doing crewed space activities. We could spend millions of dollars training people just to lose them to private industry once they get tired of waiting for a flight with NASA. I think that's already happening in the Air Force based on a story I heard on NPR last week.

I was blogging the other night and the thought occurred to me that the Lunar Gateway is better located in GEO Its here that the most economic activity occurs and future economic activity is most likely to occur. Satellite servicing and a Cryogenic Zenon propellent depot would make sense as a human-tended outpost. How big can comsats be? The GEO gateway could demonstrate a very large EVA assembled Comsat

I think I need to write a blog entry just on the GEO gateway to further refine human GEO synergies perhaps satellite recovery and refurbishment AKA DARPA (Humans and robotics)

Why? Sat service doesn't require humans. Putting humans in the Van Allen belts also seems like a pretty bad idea. The lunar gateway makes no sense. It is simply make work for the SLS but that doesn't mean a GEO station would make anymore sense.

A 'gateway' to anywhere is a dubious concept. LEO is halfway to anywhere in the solar system but that doesn't require a station it just requires the ability to refuel a spacecraft. Launch the spacecraft to LEO, launch the tanker to LEO, refuel, launch more tankers as needed until you have sufficient DeltaV and then go where you want to go.